Or sleazy? I would not buy a used car ... or an insurance policy ... from that man.
Posted on 06/08/2023 6:22:52 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called Thursday for a constitutional amendment to impose gun control on the country, claiming that his proposal “leaves the 2nd Amendment intact.”
NEW: I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to help end our nation’s gun violence crisis.
The American people are sick of Congress’ inaction.
The 28th will enshrine 4 widely supported gun safety freedoms — while leaving the 2nd Amendment intact:
1)… pic.twitter.com/ZJ7fyfH0Cf
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 8, 2023
The Second Amendment states that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed,” so it is unclear how Newsom’s proposed 28th Amendment, which restricts that right, would leave the 2nd Amendment “intact.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
BTW, if this piece of garbage runs for President suburban progressive woman will vote for him because he's "hot"
Well, on a positive note, this is the only valid approach to gun control, everything else we’ve seen is an infringement. Took them long enough to get around to a legit action. I thought this wouldn’t occur until the Supreme Court ruled all laws “controlling” the making, possession, and carrying firearms were an infringement and therefore null and void. I still have hopes that will occur, maybe calls like Newsome’s for a new constitutional amendment will hasten that. And I’m definitely not worried about a new constitutional amendment since 26+ states now have some form of constitutional carry and many states have their own versions of the second amendment in their state constitutions, so an effort to add a new constitutional amendment will be simply near impossible. So, will Newsome be honest and allow that all current laws, especially those in his home state of California, are unconstitutional and should be null and void?
Newsom can kiss my lily white butt. It is not his business what I carry. I don’t much appreciate when people make my business theirs. Keep to your own.
Orwell would be proud of little Gavin’s command of Newspeak.
Perfectly sums up the cognitive dissonance that the Left has mastered — explicitly infringing a basic right while explicitly stating that the basic right is not infringed.
Well some are sick of our rights being infringed without recourse. Look up useless and you’ll see a composite pic of democommies. Hey grabem.....phu cough!
Too bad for all those women because rumor in CA is that Greasy just might like dudes when he’s not scheming more corruption, money laundering, treason, or deals with the CCP. Greasy, the all around douche bag.
The Corrupt Four Families Of California ~ Newsom, Brown, Pelosi & Feinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trcSpd_YWIA&t=3s
Gavin Newsom and Sacramento’s culture of corruption
https://www.ocregister.com/2021/06/12/gavin-newsom-and-sacramentos-culture-of-corruption/
How eight elite San Francisco families funded Gavin Newsom’s political ascent
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-san-francisco-money/
California Republican Assemblyman Calls for Corruption Investigation Into Newsom
> Well, on a positive note, this is the only valid approach to gun control, everything else we’ve seen is an infringement. <
Good point. The only way to override a part of the Constitution that you don’t like is to “fix” it with an amendment. Every attack on the 2A that we’ve seen previously has been unconstitutional.
Anyway, most of what Newsom is proposing in his amendment is vague, and perhaps purposefully so. He wants the amendment to ban “assault weapons”. Well, who gets to decide what an assault weapon is? Perhaps it will be left to Congress. And a liberal Congress could declare anything above a single-shot firearm to be an assault weapon.
This will go about as well as the 18th Amendment.
Gavin Newsome calls for an amendment to the constitution in order to violate everyone’s inalienable (God Given) right to self protection
Yes, concept vague, I read carefully to see if he was proposing a specific amendment, but apparently not. All talk at the moment.
Let me see more than half the states have permit-less carry.
Many have their own strong constitutional amendments protecting the right to be armed.
I am sure they well vote for a amendment change doing away with the right to bear arms./s/
So way far from the number need to get a amendment passed.
The American people are sick of Congress’ inaction.
Dems are pushing hard for total control of the masses.
Or sleazy? I would not buy a used car ... or an insurance policy ... from that man.
> Let me see more than half the states have permit-less carry. <
My state has permit-less open carry. But since the law was passed, we’ve had a succession of liberal Democrat governors. No way would any of them have signed that bill. And our state legislature is certainly drifting left.
So I am not entirely comfortable here. The times they are a-changing, and not in a good way.
16, 17, and 19 need to experience the same fate as 18.
From Wikipedia:
The Mk 47 or Striker 40 is a 40mm automatic grenade launcher with an integrated fire control system, capable of launching smart programmable 40mm air burst grenades in addition to various unguided rounds.
In addition to being able to fire all NATO standard high-velocity 40mm rounds like the Mk 19 grenade launcher, it can fire MK285 smart grenades...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_47_Striker
The MK285 contains a programmable fuse...that sets the distance at which the grenade will explode, when the weapon’s trigger is pulled. The weapon’s computerized sight will have measured the distance to the target the gunner was aiming at, and that distance will be transferred to the grenade’s fuse. The munition spins, on its way to the target, and the fuse counts rotations to measure the distance travelled.
This airburst capability means that the grenade can damage or disable soft targets, like trucks, with a near miss. It also means the grenade can injure or kill soldiers who are behind walls or in trenches, through indirect fire, who could not be hurt by more conventional grenades that exploded when hitting those walls. The manufacturer characterizes the grenade as a weapon that can hit around corners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK285
“The Second Amendment states that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed,” so it is unclear how Newsom’s proposed 28th Amendment, which restricts that right, would leave the 2nd Amendment “intact.””
Oh, it’s...pretty damned “clear” to me. Like the atypical radical leftist (communist) ahole.....
he’s LYING.
All part of that “fundamental transformation” that is ongoing. And as they import millions of new, ignorant ‘voters’...they will probably eventually get their way. I certainly don’t see anyone stepping up to even try to stop them.
I’m guessing that Newsom’s amendment would still give you the right to keep and bear arms. But it would give the government the absolute ability to decide just what those arms are.
So maybe:
Single-shot target rifle? That’s okay.
Single-shot target pistol? That’s okay.
Double-barreled shotgun? That’s okay.
Anything else? Nope.
It would be like how a “free press” worked in the Soviet Union. You could print anything you wanted … as long as it was first approved by the government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.